Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PMP HQ

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMP HQ

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software product spam by SPA. No reliable sources, only self-published press releases. Could not find sources on Google. Haakon (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete A7~~ - Delete - this article about an organisation does not assert its notability. The mere fact that something exists and is spoken about does make it notable - it must be discussed by reliable independent sources in the context of its notability. See WP:EXIST and WP:MILL. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an article about an organisation, however, but about a product. I was under the impression that software articles could not be speedied. Haakon (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, was confused by the lead-in sentence, which probably should include "is an item of software". I thought the article topic was the maker of the software, not the software itself. In that case, regular old delete for the reasons I already put above. (I've accordingly performed a small tidy of the article's lead in paragraph to add the word "software" and remove many of the peacock terms.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right, the old opening was very ambiguous and now I'm not sure myself anymore. Also noticed that the old lead was a copyright violation of [1]. Haakon (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - From an author of the article - we released this software just a week ago and naturally most information about it was taken from our press release. If you guy think it's written much like advertisement please help us edit it to make more neutral or give your input and we would be happy to edit it. As of sources please take a look at [2] Zhadina (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This is an admission of copyright infringement, of conflict of interest, and of non-notability since this is a freshly released product. Note that press releases are not reliable sources~~, nor are sources you have to pay $9.95 to read~~. Haakon (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        How could it be admission of copyright infringement for own copyright on the original text in any case thanks to DustFormsWords (talk) article does not contain sentences from that article anymore, same goes to the conflict of interest issue Zhadina (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        By the way, why being a "for fee" makes source unreliable? --Zhadina (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost, it appears that I have a FUTON bias. Sorry. Haakon (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        More sources [3] and [4] Zhadina (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The first source is a press release and the second link is only a paragraph of the article. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also WP:BURDEN. Haakon (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UltraMagnus^speak 15:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fits the profile: a project management and collaboration software product aimed at small and medium size businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- if you look at List of project management software 99% of the list will fall under that definition of non-notability Zhadina (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, and every single one of them imagines that they rate a general interest encyclopedia article, despite the very restricted consumer base for that sort of thing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "very restricted consumer base" I would disagree with that as SMBs makes about 90% of US and I think world business and therefore constitute huge customer base. On the other hand amount of page reads for such lists also demonstrates significant interest for such information from general public making it worth having in wikipedia. Zhadina (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. I will try to sift through them as time allows. Meanwhile, other stuff existing does not make PMP HQ notable. Haakon (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thanks to Zhadina for commenting but he/she argues against her own case. If the software was only released last week, it's almost certainly non-notable unless somehow in that week it's set the world afire and transfigured software creation, the financial world, or society generally. Which it plainly hasn't done. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to DustFormsWords for editing the article and making it more neutral. As of product being new and such please see my comment below with reference to WP:NN --Zhadina (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two more sources citing PMP HQ [5] and [6] Zhadina (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are both trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not exactly true as web2review reputable peer review site Zhadina (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.152.43 (talk) [reply]
    - A listing page is not significant coverage per Wikipedia's notability guideline. Joe Chill (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Per WP:EXIST two independent sources are sufficient evidence of notability "In order to be notable, you need to be mentioned in more than one independent reliable source, such as two different unsolicited news articles" therefore reference cited provide good evidence of notability of the subject matter as defined in the guideline cited Zhadina (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.152.43 (talk) [reply]
      - Per WP:NN quotes as follows "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be." therefore I believes subject matter is admissible under this criteria. --Zhadina (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: — Zhadina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable enouph per google search larin [22:55, 15 October 2009] (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.155.214.26 (talk • contribs)
- Not per WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually [larin] is right as per WP:NN and Per WP:EXIST (see above) --Zhadina (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: — 190.155.214.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to Joe Chill and UltraMagnus for the input but also a little request: could you please provide an argument not only state something like "Not per WP:N" as prescribed by WP:ATA --Zhadina (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google returns enough relevant results. --95.37.250.100 (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: — 95.37.250.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it is distinctive software product description. But why have we threat it as a spam? Kolam (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: — 195.182.157.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, forgot to log in. Kolam (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To Haakon number of edits by comment author is irrelevant to the subject matter. Please keep it to the point of discussion. Thank you. --Zhadina (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is relevant to the closing admin. Haakon (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Closing admin has this information without help of posts here. In any case it's clear that there is no consensus on subject matter which is required by WP:AFD --Zhadina (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you weigh the comments of single-purpose users the same as those of established Wikipedians, then yes, there is currently no clear consensus. This, however, is not how comments are usually weighed. Haakon (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then I would like to note that subject article was edited by Avono and DustFormsWords --Zhadina (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure what the relevance of that is. Haakon (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It should remove issues of "copyright infringement, of conflict of interest" cited by you. Also per WP:AFD constitutes support for the article: "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination." --Zhadina (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Zhadina references and quotations --68.160.5.107 (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: — 68.160.5.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note more references citing subject [7], [8] and [9] --Zhadina (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These look like more trivial mentions on the press release level. The second one is another copy from [10], which is already cited. The third one just has a link to the first one, and the first one I can't evaluate since it costs money. Haakon (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not exactly true about second as Crunchbase does not contain any press releases at all and never did. You can find out more about it at TechCrunch --Zhadina (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say they were press releases. Haakon (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You said it's a copy of some other article which it's not. --Zhadina (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I said it's a copy from another article. [11] consists of a paragraph from [12] and nothing more. Haakon (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, as a shameless self-promotion and aggressive marketing, with strong suspection of sock puppets in this discussion. Article still fails to establish any notability, subject software is released a week ago. --GreyCat (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I would be you I would refrain from such an allegations without some kind of proof which naturally does not exist WP:BITE. --Zhadina (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources offered in the article consist solely of press release or press release rehashes. The sources offered in the discusson consist of more press releases and press release rehashes and directory entries. Despite the length of this disucssion, there are no reliable sources providing any significant coverage about this software to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The company behind this product has attempted to solicit "voters" to this AfD debate: [13] Haakon (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.